Fix the incorrect req and res schema for swagger #2793
Conversation
# Conflicts: # config/urls.py
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces enhancements to API documentation and schema handling in two key files. In Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
care/emr/api/viewsets/location.py (1)
Line range hint
192-193: Oh, there's a tiny bug here... just a production-breaking one.The delete query uses
encounterinstead oflocationin the filter, which would cause the deletion to fail silently.- encounter=instance, organization=organization + location=instance, organization=organization
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
care/utils/swagger/schema.py (2)
31-35: Perhaps we could make the suffix check more... explicit?While the suffix check works, it might be more maintainable to use an explicit set of allowed suffixes. You know, for those who come after us.
-if suffix not in {"List", "Instance"}: +ALLOWED_SUFFIXES = {"List", "Instance"} +if suffix not in ALLOWED_SUFFIXES:
37-42: getattr could use default values, just saying...The getattr calls could benefit from explicit None defaults, rather than relying on the implicit behavior.
- return getattr(view, "pydantic_model", None) + return getattr(view, "pydantic_model", None) or None - return getattr(view, "pydantic_update_model", None) or getattr( - view, "pydantic_model", None - ) + return getattr(view, "pydantic_update_model", None) or getattr( + view, "pydantic_model", None + ) or Nonecare/emr/api/viewsets/location.py (1)
153-156: The schema documentation is... minimal.While you've added the schema types, it would be lovely if we could add some description about what this endpoint actually does.
@extend_schema( request=FacilityLocationOrganizationManageSpec, responses={200: FacilityOrganizationReadSpec}, + description="Associates an organization with a facility location.", + summary="Add organization to location" )
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
care/emr/api/viewsets/location.py(4 hunks)care/utils/swagger/schema.py(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (python)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript)
- GitHub Check: test / test
🔇 Additional comments (1)
care/emr/api/viewsets/location.py (1)
Line range hint
220-220: Looks like we're missing something rather important here.The TODO comment suggests that the association models are not implemented yet. This could affect the functionality of the endpoint.
Let's check if there are any related model definitions:
Would you like me to help implement the association models? I can create a new issue to track this task.
| model = getattr(view, "pydantic_read_model", None) or getattr( | ||
| view, "pydantic_model", None | ||
| ) | ||
| else: | ||
| model = ( | ||
| getattr(view, "pydantic_retrieve_model", None) | ||
| or getattr(view, "pydantic_read_model", None) | ||
| or getattr(view, "pydantic_model", None) | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
This getattr chain is... interesting.
The nested getattr chain is a bit hard to follow. Perhaps we could extract this into a helper method? You know, for readability and all that.
+ def _get_model_from_view(self, model_types):
+ """Helper method to get the first available model from view."""
+ for model_type in model_types:
+ model = getattr(self.view, model_type, None)
+ if model:
+ return model
+ return None
+
def get_response_serializers(self):
# ... existing code ...
- model = getattr(view, "pydantic_read_model", None) or getattr(
- view, "pydantic_model", None
- )
+ model = self._get_model_from_view([
+ "pydantic_read_model",
+ "pydantic_model"
+ ])
- model = (
- getattr(view, "pydantic_retrieve_model", None)
- or getattr(view, "pydantic_read_model", None)
- or getattr(view, "pydantic_model", None)
- )
+ model = self._get_model_from_view([
+ "pydantic_retrieve_model",
+ "pydantic_read_model",
+ "pydantic_model"
+ ])Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2793 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 56.14% 56.16% +0.01%
===========================================
Files 215 215
Lines 10205 10210 +5
Branches 1032 1030 -2
===========================================
+ Hits 5730 5734 +4
- Misses 4459 4460 +1
Partials 16 16 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Proposed Changes
Associated Issue
Architecture changes
Merge Checklist
/docsOnly PR's with test cases included and passing lint and test pipelines will be reviewed
@ohcnetwork/care-backend-maintainers @ohcnetwork/care-backend-admins
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Improvements